4 ms·

1: For example, if a government can legally place a person at a location to observe, I believe any actions to prevent their capability to automate this process

by nkurz 11y ago

1: For example, if a government can legally place a person at a location to observe, I believe any actions to prevent their capability to automate this process (CCTV) will likely fail in outcome, if not legislation. Some recent US court cases have reached the opposite conclusion, and decided that a right to privacy from video surveillance exists:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/federal-court-agrees-eff-throws-out-six-weeks-warrantless-video-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/federal-court-agrees-e... Although perhaps your standard holds, and the argument would that constant warrantless surveillance would be illegal even if done by a human.

kbenson 11y ago
Where I think this might cause problems, be likely to be appealed, or are ripe for legislation to change are cases like this where it would have been completely legal to have an undercover agent stake out the house and obtain the same footage of firearms use and thus obtain the same warrant. I don't know if that was the case here (but it sounds like it was). To be clear, I don't think it's impossible to create laws outlawing that situation, or find that current laws find it illegal, just that those cases will be where there is extreme friction between the law and those it applies to, and there will be a higher likelihood to ignore it. > Although perhaps your standard holds, and the argument would that constant warrantless surveillance would be illegal even if done by a human. That's possible. Then again, depending on what is outlawed it may run afoul of what I think is a related (and probably root) phenomenon, where something easily accomplished with little risk or cost by the average person is outlawed, and is often ignored. e.g. Jaywalking.